Why I Got the Yves Lasne Prize for Homeopathy

Why I Got the Yves Lasne Prix for Homeopathy

ON THE DAY OF THE DEAD

ABSTRACT

REMOVING THE CURSE
Particle Finite vs. the Physic of the Infinitesimal

PARIS

ON THE DAY OF THE DEAD, November 2nd, 1999, 17 years ago to the day, I was in Tucson to discuss previously unknown tests for the solute in homeopathic diluents with Prof. Gary Schwartz at the Human Energy Systems Laboratory for the examination of unexplained human oriented phenomena, what is commonly regarded as the paranormal.
Prior to the meeting I wandered around a quiet neighborhood in the university district, to kill time, when a big black pickup pulled up next to me. The window rolls down and the driver leans out, butch looking guy in a white T shirt. He hooks a muscular left arm out the window and points from the hip upward to the sky and says, “Look at the Sun . . ”
It looked like it had split into three parts, two four pointed stars shone as smaller suns on either side of the usual sol. The array appeared to be connected by an encircling ring, giving it the appearance of a huge eye microscoping us
“You ever see anything like that?” he said.
“No. Have you?” I said.
“Nope.”
“What is it?”
“I don’t know. Maybe it’s the eye if God,” he said and drove away.

ABSTRACT

In a world growing in artificial intelligence, augmented consciousness, robots and drones, organic needs will multiply. The desire for organic interaction between real human beings intensifies, the ability to recognize the human soul sharpens, and a tried and true, quantum human chemistry emerges.

For over 200 years, as best defined by Pauling and applied by Hahnemann, as enigmatic and cryptic as it may seem to be, quantum chemistry has cured epidemic and pandemic, smallpox and diphtheria horse hoof and gout; heavy metal poisoning, soldier’s heart to PTSD; milk leg and

Quantum chemist Linus Pauling, only man to win two Nobel prizes 100% . .

Quantum chemist Linus Pauling, only man to win two Nobel prizes 100% . .

housemaid’s knee to phlegmasia alba dolens and bursitis; blood poisoning, cancer, diabetes, Ebola . . every ailment conceivable by every shape of man, beast and plant the broad breaths of the world can furnish and has suggested a cure in every one.

In medicine the application of quantum chemistry is called homeopathy.

The quantum chemical definition of the homeopathic dilution is hydrolyte (Benneth > thefreedictionary. A hydrolyte is a product of hydrolysis, the reaction of water with another chemical compound to form two or more products, involving ionization by protonation from the water molecule. In homeopathic serial dilutions hydrolysis infinitely splits the guest solute into hydrolytes. In these dilutions the intended molecular content is completely ionized by the seventh decimal dilution (7X), negating Avogadro < when applied as a molar reduction limit rather than as a predictor of the electron pressure constant. The phase shift electronically structures the hydrogen bonded crystalline solvent as found

Plasma discharge from supramolecular homeopathic solution

Plasma discharge from supramolecular homeopathic solution.

 

in clathrates by grabbing solvent H gas under exogeneous pressure, such as from the mild perturbations of the background radiation (Schumann Resonances) or nanoscale fission induced by succussion, converting it to H plasma, structured as the solute.
Dissociation of sub atomic particles causes increases coherence of the solute signal due to quantum entanglement.

REMOVING THE CURSE

I’ve lost count how many times trolls have demanded, if I had truly found a test to identify homeopathic dilutes from pure water and can explain how, then why is it I haven’t won a Nobel prize for it?

Dissociation Constant

Dissociation Constant

I think I understand now what Bob Dylan is going thru. I got an even greater prize, in capitalized science, potentially worth more than the Nobel, nor as onerous, or blinded by politics of corporate interests.

They said Dylan was arrogant, as if he is now under some obligation to the Merchant of Death’s legacy to return a phone call.
There are some painful problems with it. Homeopaths have always had a disdain for the Nobel prize ever since the first recipient of it for Medicine was told to shut up about homeopathy. Emil von Behring (1805) had to be warned not to say anything about his diptheria antitoxin being inspired by homeopathy, or he would not receive the Nobel prize for it . . https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/nobel-prize-winners-on-homeopathy/ that it was based on the precipice of homeopathy’s main gate, similitude, you cure a disease by giving the semblance of one similar to it.
The original vaccine, the cowpox toxin, is a perfect example, in fact, after seeing it eradicate smallpox in village after village, Hahnemann knew he was on the right track with similitude. It is no mere coincidence that he stopped a bullet in a 1796 edition of Hufeland’s Journal by using the word homeopatie for the first time, the same year that Edward Jenner rolled out the Vaccine. But now both sides of the argument refuse to recognize this quantum chemical fact, that the vaccine works because it is homeopathic. Yet it appears to be a mass delusion that homeopathy is not behind Man’s greatest medical achievement.
If you want to stop a fight between a homeopath and a scientist, just say the smallpox vaccine is homeopathic . . and, in the name of common hubris, they will suddenly stop fighting, join forces and turn on you.
So the Nobel prize is like a death sentence . . death by hubris. Loss of hope.
If I was Bob Dylan I wouldn’t accept it either.
Like Pauling, Hahnemann was a Master Chemist, but unlike Pauling, Hahnemann worked without a net. Anyone can see the evidence for homeopathy in the recipe, but some have to think they know how it works.
I live down the street from where Linus Pauling is buried. He is the only man to win the Nobel prize twice, 100%, the first time he won it was for quantum chemistry (1954) and he did it before he finished high school, Washington High School in Portland, Oregon. He said that it was due to the electro dynamic effect of water’s hydrogen bond structuring that alcohol had it’s narcotic effect, proof that the effects of the solute are solely due to the hydrolytic potential of water, yet he never uttered a word of this being proof for the action of hydrolytes homeopathically, obviously terrified they’d never give him another Nobel if he did. If Linus shot his mouth off about the quantum chemistry of homeopathy, not only would he not be in line for another Nobel prize, they’d ask for the first one back . . and he’d flunk high school, too.
That’s how contentious the topic of homeopathy is. Except to condemn, defame or ridicule it, if you talk about homeopathy, no Nobel prize for you.
No other chemist has contributed more to quantum chemistry than Linus Pauling, yet even he was not exempt from the pharma injunction against associating it with homeopathy . . yet wasn’t it he that said that the electronic structure of molecules and crystals deternines their chemical properties, and that it is the liquid crystalline structure of water around a solute that imparts its biological effects? And isn’t it true that by hydrolytic dissociation the solute particle will split indefinitely and by self assembly of water molecules, populate virgin diluent 100%?
Simple tests of dielectric stress, permitivity and molar conductance prove it, but most investigators want nothing to do with them . . amongst others such as NMR, TEM, optical density, beta scintillation and plasma discharge.
Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier complained of “intellectual terrorism” and as liberal and pionering as it had been, was run out of France after he replicated provings of homeopathy by Jacques Benveniste, the director of the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, whose career was destroyed after he replicated Poitevin, a seminal biochemical assay of a homeopathically diluted histamine . . and when he heretically got the results published in Nature, the world’s leading science journal, those who made their piece by pretending to debunk it, were enraged by it, setting “science” on fire.
So here you can see that the greatest prize for genius is not available for a chemical explanation of this mysterious subject. The fallout from all this excruciatingly painful obloquy and punishment for validating an unexplained fact is that anyone who seeks to validate homeopathy is subjected to lynching by the science community with the admonition to y’all . . stay away . .
That is, until now.
Homeopathy now has its own Nobel prize.
The prize I got 17 years after the eye of God looked down on me was the Yves Lasne for fundamental research in homeopathy. I’d like to think it is for finally explaining the quantum chemistry of homeopathy in conventional ionic theory, how homeopathy works in conventional terms.
So it is no happenstance coincidence in my superstitious mind that the same chemistry that drives homeopathy also describes sun dogs, what Manly Hall calls a rare Day of Three Suns, “parhelia” . . the huge clathrate eye over Schwartz’s paranormal testing lab, staring down at me 17 years ago, marking out my mission: Raise $5 million dollars to explain the “mechanism”, describe in known chemical processes the physico-chemistry of homeopathy, say how and why it works in conventional terms referenced and hyperlinked online in an e-book about it entitled Physic of the Infinitesimal, with Applications in Medicine, Agriculture and Industry.

I WAS flown to Paris, First Class, put up in a six star hotel on the Champs Elysees, fed French food morning noon and night by one of the great chefs of Europe, watched PPTs by Saurav Arola and Gabriel Vernot, gave a little talk, ceremoniously made first recipient of the prize, given a tour of Paris, a dose of culture shock and sent back home the same way I came, but with new mission, hope and enthusiasm.

SHOUT OUT to Ry Cooder, Uri Geller, Richard L. Adams, Jr., George Noory, Sandra Courtney, Jana Shiloh, Dana Ullman, Georg Andras, Gabruel Vernot, Sandeep Laila, MD., Brian Josephson

Advertisements

14 comments on “Why I Got the Yves Lasne Prize for Homeopathy

  1. Jeff Boerst says:

    Interesting the headlines of your last few posts:

    “Why I Got the Yves Lasne Prize for Homeopathy”
    “I receive the Yves Lasne Price award for homeopathy”
    “John Benneth to receive homeopathy’s highest award”

    Will your next post be “Hey guys, remember when I got the Yves Lasne Prize/Price (whatever it’s called) for Homeopathy? Wasn’t that awesome?”

    Like

  2. Linda says:

    Congratulation on receiving your award! Homeopathy is so awesome.

    Like

  3. Gold says:

    If you really have finally explained the quantum chemistry of homeopathy in conventional ionic theory then the research must have been replicated by others. Can you provide links to the studies that validate this?

    Like

    • johnbenneth says:

      The seminal work linking homeopathy with ionic theory is found in Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D.’s “The Scientific Reasonableness of Homeopathy” http://www.homeowatch.org/history/copeland.html
      See “molecular dissociation”

      Like

      • Gold says:

        I’d already found that. I’m actually interested in the replications. The strength in any scientific hypothesis is in the testing and failure to disprove it.

        Like

        • johnbenneth says:

          Tests of specific molar conductance are relatively common and simple . . and have been performed on homeopathic dilutions. Here’s an example: http://scienceofhomeopathy.com/brucato.html

          Dielectric strength testing by Brucato and Stephenson was a replication of Gay and Boiron’s conductance test of high dilutions, followed by four other similar published tests. I have counted a dozen other types of physical tests for homeopathic dilutions, such as NMR (18 replications), transmission electron microscopy, and beta scintillation of neutronic radiation. The work of the Yves Lasne Prize sponsors was primarily NMR and revealed new indices, such as effects of gravitation, UV and EM fields on homeopathic solutions. Read Theory of High Dilutions and experimental aspects by Rolland Conte, Yves Lasne, Henri Berliocchi and Gabriel Vernot.

          Here’s another review of tests supporting ionic theory for homeopathy:
          ‘The “Ultra High Dilution 1994” project was an endeavour to take stock of the findings and theories on homeopathic extreme dilutions that were under research at the time in areas of biology, biophysics, physics and medicine. The project finally materialized into an anthology assembling contributions of leading scientists in the field. Over the following two decades, it became widely quoted within the homeopathic community and also known in other research communities. The aim of the present project was to re-visit and review the 1994 studies from the perspective of 2015.’ http://www.homeopathyjournal.net/article/S1475-4916(15)00060-0/abstract?cc=y=

          Here’s another review of physical testing of homeopathic dilutions (of varying quality) showing evidence of the solute in post Avogadro solutions, what notional academia erroneously believes has to be pure solvents. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12676040

          So if you still have doubts about an ionic asymptote in homeopathic dilutions, conduct your own tests, publish your findings and post YOUR links.

          Like

          • Gold says:

            “So if you still have doubts about an ionic asymptote in homeopathic dilutions, conduct your own tests, publish your findings and post YOUR links.”

            1. A number of links to very old and doesn’t replication of your claims.
            2. A replication of a study published in a discredited journal. It also doesn’t cite you in the references.
            3. Another paper more than a decade old and in a Journal with an extremely low impact factor. It also doesn’t cite you so again, not a replication that backs your claims.

            John, the request is very simple. I’ll try to be very clear though;

            Can you please post some links to replications *of your work* by *other people* published in *respected journals* with a decent impact factor.

            Like

            • Gold says:

              The sound of crickets speaks volumes…

              Like

              • johnbenneth says:

                I have objectively at best, reported on the literature. Any published work of my own would be a mere drop in the bucket of objective tests, with one exception in what I apparently inspired at the Nov 2nd 1999 meeting at the HESL, and that would be gas/plasma discharge studies by Gary Schwartz, Iris Bell et al at the Univ. of Arizona in Tucson.
                But objective physical tests have no meaning without first sampling this chemistry for yourself. Only when you have felt this chemistry can you honestly discuss its impact, or criticize proponents of it . . which appears to be your only goal here, to dismiss and demean the evidence of action and its reporters with specious arguments.
                You apparently have failed to put it to the test on its first subject, YOU.
                So let’s talk about that . . when will YOU put it to a real test?

                Like

                • Gold says:

                  Yeah… You have so many things arse backwards there.

                  I shouldn’t need to test it on myself. I have, but it shouldn’t need to be a thing. In fact, it *shouldn’t* be a thing. In order to test it fairly you should be removing observer bias as much as possible to establish that there is in fact an effect to begin with. This research *has* been done. And you know the findings. The better the methodology at removing bias the less of an effect there is to be seen.

                  I believe it was Richard Feynman who first said “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”

                  But yeah, your assumption that I’ve not used homeopathy is an uninformed position. I have. It didn’t work. It is part of what got me interested in this in the first place.

                  The rest of what I’m reading here suggests that you don’t actually have any work of your own that is novel, repeated or replicated. If you did you’d be posting that all over the place.

                  “I have objectively at best, reported on the literature.”

                  Did you factor in prior plausibility? You appear to have missed that bit.

                  Like

  4. drsmsharma says:

    Dear Mr Benneth, Thanks for sharing this information. With best wishes

    Like

  5. I’m proud and pleased about your accomplishment John! It’s all about giving back, isn’t it.

    Like

  6. Trevor James says:

    Way to go John!! A modern hero

    Like

What do you think? Question? Answer? Please comment. Your thoughful reply will be appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s